Rush Limbaugh Program - May 22, 2015, Friday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 22, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:46

May 22, 2015, Friday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	No, it just won't stop.
	It just won't stop.
	I mean, look at this.
	This is the Hillary stack.
	It just never stops.
	It's all the drive-bys care about is Hillary news.
	It's now.
	From Sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday.
	I mean, look at it.
	Hillary, it's the New York Times.
	Hillary Clinton, acutely aware of Pitfalls Avoids Press on campaign trail.
	Hillary Clinton sets June date for official campaign announcement rally.
	I thought she already announced.
	And I thought it was a dud.
	I guess that's why they're doing it again.
	A closer look at Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi.
	Clinton emails reveal Slain ambassador considered leaving Libya.
	And it just goes on.
	Archives officials worried about preserving Hillary's records.
	In just five weeks, Hillary is at a lifetime quota of scandals.
	That's Mike Gerson, former speechwriter Bush, the bizarrely slow process of releasing Hillary Clinton's emails.
	Explained another reason why Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be president.
	And then Ron Fournier, I tell you, I feel for this guy.
	He writes three or four Hillary columns a week now.
	And the latest one, get this, get this headline.
	Come on, where is why Bill and Hillary Clinton may want to throttle me.
	Jeez!
	Greetings, folks.
	Great.
	It's two different worlds out there, and I'm not in theirs.
	I don't have I don't have a toe in theirs, much less a foot.
	Anyway, open line Friday, as you know, we um uh end each week by devoting the last day of the week to whatever callers want to talk about.
	Doesn't have to be politics, it doesn't have to be the news of the day or any particular issue, and it doesn't have to be anything I care about.
	It has to be something I care about Monday through Thursday, because the job of a caller is to make the host look good.
	And that doesn't mean by fawning and and praising and all that.
	Um it means a caller is is uh makes the host look good by inspiring me to be even more brilliant than I usually am.
	So that's what that's what that means.
	On Friday, we throw all that out at whatever you want to talk about.
	Pretend you're the host, it's your show, and you think there are people out there just have to know stuff.
	This is your chance to have at that.
	800-282-2882 is the number.
	And if you'd rather go email, we uh check the email frequently here.
	We don't often read them verbatim, but I do reference them.
	It is L Rushbow at EIB net.
	You know, it's amazing.
	For I don't know, six months, three months, three weeks.
	The absolute greatest guy to have ever lived and walked the planet has been David Letterman.
	That has been a the news of Letterman and his approaching final show was almost as big a news as Deflate Gate and whatever is going on with Hillary on a given day.
	And then, I mean, and it's the most important ever, the biggest ever, it's the end of an era.
	Can the country go on?
	Oh my god, will people be able to live the next day?
	Kind of coverage of David Letterman's last show.
	And what happens?
	Within five or six hours of the last show, they go into his studio and just rip it apart and throw it in the dumpster.
	It's not that they just ripped it apart and took it out of there, they threw it in the dumpster.
	Columbo's dirty coat is at the Smithsonian.
	Johnny Carson has stuff at the Smithsonian.
	I guess Letterman's desk is going there.
	Now they kept intact the replica of the George Washington Bridge that was on the Letterman set that you can plainly see sitting uh well, he's at his desk, it's what was behind him, and they carried that out in one piece.
	I don't know who's gonna get it.
	I don't know if it's gonna survive.
	It's just, and the New York Post headline, CBS throws Letterman set into dumpster.
	So literally, one day you are the best ever, the only one that's ever done it that ever matters.
	And the next day you are literally in the garbage.
	Man, oh man, if that doesn't perfectly describe our culture and society, I don't know what does.
	Former United Nations leader.
	Global warming caused by natural variations in climate.
	This is not just a UN guy.
	This is a guy that headed up.
	The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.
	This guy was a lead author.
	And he now says he's no longer there.
	He's gone.
	He says global temperature changes observed over the last 100 years or so.
	They're well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years.
	In other words, there's nothing abnormal in anything that's happened the last 100 years.
	Nothing that can be traced to man-made activity, nothing that can be traced to anything.
	It's even abnormal.
	Everything that's happened the last hundred years can be shown to be in the natural fluxation and variation of normal global temperatures.
	Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th century.
	I don't know if it's the first time anybody's thought to do this.
	But it seems to me they have.
	I mean, you you if you want to get a correct reading on this, you certainly would want to study temperatures before evil white men left Europe.
	Because that's when all this stuff traces.
	If you listen to the left, practically every problem we've got sociologically, climatologically, climaxologically, whatever problem we got is all traced back to when white Europeans fled Europe and dropped anchor somewhere here in the new world.
	Anyway, you can look for this guy to be roasted and savaged before the end of next week.
	Because he was a lead author, the IPCC, and he's basically debunking the whole thing.
	And you know what probably means?
	Whatever sources of income he had dried up.
	The sources of income that depended on certain things being said about global warming and science at the UN, he's probably not being paid by those people anymore.
	So now he doesn't have to fudge it to continue getting a paycheck.
	In the midst of crime scenes, police say it's harder to do their jobs in Baltimore.
	Talked about this yesterday, but get this.
	Wednesday, the city's frustrated top cop says that officers are being confronted by large groups and cell phone cameras in the wake of the Freddie Gray case.
	Oh, I didn't know they were gonna do this, but the um the state's attorney there, Marilyn Mosby, went ahead and submitted all of this to the grand jury.
	And she got indictments for all six of these cops.
	I'll tell you what happened here.
	In addition to getting indictments on all the charges she mentioned, there's some new charges in there.
	And the new charges, I mean, it's it needs to be said, the new charges have a much greater chance of being seen through prosecution and a verdict.
	I mean, some of the stuff that she charged him with is not gonna survive the first day of court.
	Uh and I think what's happened here is that she knows it, and a bunch of advisors told her that.
	So originally they weren't gonna go to the grand jury.
	They sometime in the past decided to do so and added new charges to it that hold a greater likelihood of conviction, and they're much lesser charges than first degree murder, second degree murder, hate crime, murder, thrice decided, whatever the charges are.
	Something a little bit more reasonable is thrown in.
	But the point is, the bottom of this article about uh, you know, the police commissioner now saying it's really getting tough out there because when we do respond to an event, we are surrounded by 50 or 60 citizens, all videotaping the cops with their cell phones.
	And of course, you know what that the purpose of that is to get the cops to remain in the background.
	Exactly what the community policing guidelines from the Obama Department of Justice are.
	But it turns out, folks, the bottom line here is there have been 14 shootings in the last 24 hours, in addition to everything that we had yesterday when this program ended, 14 more shootings in the last 24 hours in Baltimore.
	And we were told that after Mosby indicted the cops, well charged the cops, now you add to it that the grand jury has gotten into gear.
	We were we were told that that was the only reason there was unrest in Baltimore was the cops.
	And the community feeling the cops are unfair and getting away with all this mistreatment of people.
	But now the cops have had it handed to them, and they've been charged.
	And these six of them charged with murder, second degree, third degree, whatever it is, manslaughter, and that's going to fix everything.
	But it hasn't.
	Violence is still out of control.
	And yet another survey on what the American people think of homosexuality.
	This is a Gallup survey.
	And in this survey, it is reported that 20%, Americans believe that 20% of the population is homosexual.
	In fact, more than half the American people in this survey believe the American homosexual population is at least 20%.
	Now we know that the gay population in the country is barely 2%.
	Some places you might see 4%, but it's really barely 2%.
	A previous poll like this of millennials, people 18 to 31, 18 to 34, 32, somewhere in that age range, they believe that 35 to 40% of the population is gay.
	The Gallup poll of the general population shows that over well, 50%, 53% of the American people think that the gay population is at least 20%.
	So we do not have a poll that indicates the American people even are close to knowing what the actual homosexual population of the country is.
	And there's perfectly understandable reason for that, and that would be the media.
	And I hate to keep saying it because it sounds redundant, but it's true.
	And not so much just the news media, but the entertainment media as well here.
	And by the way, not just the media.
	Well, if you want to call television shows media, I guess they are.
	And if you want to call movies media, because both genres have, for I guess, the recent uh past maybe two or three TV seasons have been portraying the gay populations of a cast, the gay population of a TV show, half half of a lot of shows is gay, even the show in Nashville.
	I mean, two or three running stories about homosexuality, and then don't change.
	It's about bigoted parents and uh mean-spirited citizens and about gay people scared to death to come out of the closet.
	It just it's the same old thing.
	And the American people have been pummeled with this, although they don't realize it's a pummeling that they've gotten.
	It's just been a steady onslaught, and it's understandable based on the television shows that are populated with gay characters that they would think the cop the country population is anywhere from 20 to 35 or 40 percent gay, but it isn't.
	And it goes back to the question I asked a couple of weeks ago.
	How is it in the aftermath of what happened in Indiana with a religious freedom restoration act?
	How is it that one to two percent of the population can bully everybody else and get what they want?
	And this is how it happens.
	They're not thought of as only one percent or two percent.
	They're thought of as in one poll, almost half the country is gay.
	The millennials come Close to believing that.
	Well, it only stands to reason then that they would think gay marriage is something that's fine and dandy and we ought to be promoting it and we ought to support it.
	It's love-based, and there was a whole lot of people that were discriminating against there.
	And of course, there's no discrimination at all in the gay marriage issue.
	There's just assumed presumed stated discrimination.
	But marriage as an institution was not started to discriminate against people.
	Whoever started the whole idea of marriage did not sit around and say, okay, how can we, how can we establish a tradition and an institution that excludes 2% of the population?
	How can we do that?
	That's not how it came to be.
	And yet, that's how overcoming it is portrayed, that there's latent bigotry and discrimination in the institution itself, which of course there isn't.
	Okay, folks, we had some sum bites yesterday from uh Frank DeFord.
	I didn't get to, want to get to those today about the Patriots deflate gate situation.
	And this Hillary Clinton stack, I swear, folks, honestly, I I come here every day trying to diminish it and trying to set it aside and put it over there, and it's just impossible to do.
	I mean, you talk about the zone being flooded, and it doesn't matter.
	It seems all of the lies that Mrs. Clinton tells are being exposed.
	All of the fraud that's part of the foundation, the uh Clinton Global Initiative, it's all being exposed, and a lot of it's being exposed in the drive-by media for the first time.
	And it's still, as far as we are able to tell, out there in the general public, is still a whole hummer.
	Anyway, so we've got that.
	This is also Memorial Day.
	This to me is one of the most important memorial days, and they're all important.
	Even that little characterization should give you an idea how tough this one is to talk about.
	This particular Memorial Day, with everything going on in Iraq and the Middle East and ISIS now just running out of control, and our leadership seemingly unconcerned.
	The Iranians nuking up.
	But Iraq and what's happening there has got to be, has got to make this memorial day a real challenge for a lot of American families.
	Those who had family members who served in Iraq, who were injured and wounded in the rock or died in Iraq.
	I mean, they might legitimately be asking themselves this weekend, this Memorial Day, why?
	What was the point?
	Was it worth it?
	And you wouldn't blame them if they did.
	It's a toughie.
	Still needs to be acknowledged, however, and we will do so during the course of the program today.
	Sit tight back with everything else after this.
	Okay, folks, a little heads up here.
	There's gonna be a document dump.
	State Department scheduled to do another patented Friday evening document dump today.
	And what they're gonna release is 850 or so Hillary Clinton emails that are related to Benghazi.
	Now, never mind, you're not supposed to remember that Hillary Clinton claimed she never did any official business using her private email accounts.
	You're not supposed to remember that.
	Because today we're gonna get 850 Hillary emails from her private server related to Benghazi.
	So typical of the Clintons, so typical of the Democrat Party, dumping all these emails right before the Memorial Day weekend, so that nobody's gonna see them or hear about them.
	But somehow, isn't it amazing?
	Somehow, I have the story right here in the Clinton stack.
	The New York Times managed to get hold of a third of these 850 emails in advance.
	Isn't that interesting?
	850 emails document dumped Later today, New York Times has around 300 of them.
	Now, who would have given the New York Times 300 Clinton emails?
	And the New York Times even says that they received guidance on the key revelations in the emails.
	Isn't that interesting?
	So we got 300 of 850 emails around to be released to the Times already, and they got guidance from somebody telling them how to read them, what's important in them.
	Now, who would have, who would have leaked these emails?
	Marie Harf at the State Department says it wasn't them, and they're supposed to have the only copies, apart from Hillary, of course, who deleted them, she said.
	So where'd these come from?
	Where'd the New York Times get them?
	Hillary said she doesn't have them.
	State Department says we didn't give them away, and we didn't provide the guidance.
	So where'd the Times get them?
	Open line Friday, EIB Network.
	Here's that New York Times story.
	A closer look at Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi.
	In response to a request from Mrs. Clinton.
	A State Department plans to release roughly 850 pages of Hillary's emails that relate to Libya and the Benghazi attack in the coming days.
	Oh, see?
	See how this.
	Yes, Hillary has asked her emails be released.
	It's funny, we thought a federal judge just ordered this.
	I could have sworn a federal judge authorized or ordered the release of Hillary Clinton's emails.
	But no, it turns out that it was the magnificent one and the munificent one herself, Hillary, who's been saying she's got no control over what the State Department does.
	Except now for this instance, I guess they're giving her control.
	But maybe it really wasn't, or it was Hillary after all, since these emails will be released this evening.
	Classic Clinton document dump.
	And I don't think there's any doubt about what's going on here.
	Look, here's what you have to understand.
	These people, New York Times, Washington, New York, Boston, the whole Northeastern media elite corridor, since the most important thing in their lives right now is Hillary Clinton and her securing the nomination in the presidency, then they assume that everybody else is thinking the same way.
	A lot of people do this.
	It hampers on a golf course all the time.
	You'll have a force him out there, and one guy in the foresome will think that his game is the only game all the other guys care about.
	And so he'll analyze every mistake he made, and he'll tell you every shot he plans as though nobody's thinking about their own game because they're so absorbed in his.
	When, in fact, nobody cares about his game because everybody's absorbed in their own.
	Same thing here.
	These people are assuming that we all can't get enough about Hillary.
	We all are dying to know the latest about Hillary, and we all want the news to be okay and good.
	We don't want Mrs. Clinton harmed her.
	We don't want her hurt.
	We don't want her attacked.
	We want Mrs. Clinton...
	So the New York Times thinks everybody believes this, and they may their own readership and within the elite circles of the drive-by media.
	I think there's a Clinton obsession going on now.
	And I think they're scared to death if you want to know the truth.
	I think they're worried silly over Mrs. Clinton's chances.
	They can remember what happened in 2008.
	And despite what they're writing, this is too much, folks.
	All of this overboard on Hillary's greatness and Hillary's competence and the cover-ups of her obvious incompetence and her obvious detachment and her obvious personality flaws, all that stuff never gets mentioned.
	We just hear about how wonderful and smart and brilliant and effective and all this.
	And I think it's betraying the fact that they're worried.
	Because in their world, where they love her and they think she's the answer, everybody ought to believe that, or everybody does.
	And then when they see polling data that doesn't reflect it, they get concerned and worried.
	There's a New York Times story today devoted to the subject of how concerned and worried about Marco Rubio the Democrats are.
	I just checked it.
	I don't recall the headline, but it's something to the effect that Democrats are worried about a Hillary Rubio contest.
	Now you could say that, well, that's just a setup, that they're not really worried about Rubio, that they want it to be Rubio, and so they're running a fake story to tell everybody that they really fear Rubio, so that the Republicans will then put Rubio up there.
	And secretly, that's who they really want.
	I don't think they're going into that deep in the weeds yet.
	I mean, they're entirely capable of it, and it could be that, but I don't think it is.
	I think that Rubio is something to be worried about.
	A lot of these Republican candidates are something to be really worried about for Mrs. Clinton.
	I mean, she's going to get smoked in the debates.
	She's going to get exposed.
	It's going to depend on what kind of media cover that the moderators in these debates give her, and also what kind of character assassination and defamation occurs against the Republicans in the debates by the media who are moderating it.
	But I don't think these people on the Democrat side believe that she's a slam dunk.
	They would be wise not to think that because recent history is that it doesn't take much to derail her plans.
	But all this stuff they're looking the other way on, all the bribery and people come, well, Russia, you know, you've got to be very careful.
	What they're doing may not be illegal.
	We just don't know because nobody's ever done it.
	And what they're talking about is sell access like this.
	Nobody has ever sold access like well, the Clintons have.
	They used the White House as a as a motel six.
	There were donors spending a night every night in the Lincoln bedroom.
	They sold the Lincoln bedroom.
	They sold the Queen's bedroom right across the hall.
	They sold all this to donors routinely.
	So they have a track record of this.
	I question about whether that's legal or not.
	Try this if a Republican's doing it, you find out how fast it's legal.
	You let it be learned that Jeb Bush is collecting hundred million dollar donations from some guy with business interests in Ukraine, all based on the fact that Jeb's going to be president someday, and this guy expects his repayment.
	You don't think somebody on the Democrat side would be looking into the illegality of it.
	Yeah, but Russia, it may not really be illegal.
	We just don't know.
	Nobody's ever done it before.
	Well, whatever.
	Fact is, all of this stuff that casts the Clintons and Mrs. Clinton in a negative light, obviously being ignored.
	But I think it, I think it all indicates that they're worried.
	They'll never admit it.
	Some will.
	Ron Fournier is admitting it.
	Ron Fournier is writing regularly about how he can't believe the depths to which the Clintons have sunk.
	You and I know they've always been there.
	But he has obviously celebrity worship in his column today.
	He wouldn't be surprised why Bill and Hillary Clinton may want to throttle me.
	You imagine the self-absorption in that.
	Anyway, he's been ripping them to shreds on uh integrity and character issues.
	So my only point is this document dump today, uh, and the New York Times trying to help Hillary through it.
	These are Benghazi emails, 850.
	The New York Times has 300 of them or so.
	And here's the spin.
	And I think I think the New York Times is pre-spinning the document dump.
	They've got them, and nobody knows how.
	Hillary claims that she didn't keep them.
	She deleted them from her server.
	The State Department says we didn't give them to the New York Times.
	Marie Arve said, no, no, no.
	I'm too busy trying to get Iran a nuclear weapon.
	I didn't have time to give any emails to the New York Times.
	But yet the New York Times has them.
	And the New York Times claims they got guidance along with the emails, guidance, meaning, okay, here's what's really important in them.
	And the New York Times says that uh Sid Vicious, Sidney Blumenthal sent Hillary an email blaming the Benghazi attacks on that video the day after the attacks.
	Then the day after that, the second day after the attacks, Blumenthal walked back that assertion and blamed it on a terror group, who he said has been planning it for more than a month.
	But the New York Times story makes it sound like by then it Hillary was stuck with the line about the video because that's what Obama was telling everybody.
	So this is an effort to distance Hillary from the excuse that it was a video, using Sid Blumenthal to keep her once removed from this.
	So Blumenthal is going to assume the role of having misinformed her.
	And then he realized his mistake in the very next day he fixed it.
	But Mrs. Clinton couldn't do anything about it because Obama was already wedded to the video excuse.
	So once again, Mrs. Clinton has been trapped.
	Mrs. Clinton has been hoodwinked.
	Mrs. Clinton has been swept into something not of her making, that she cannot extricate herself because loyal aides and the president of the United States are subordinating her.
	This is I you think that everybody reads the New York Times is going to believe this.
	That focus group that we saw on TV that we played the audio for?
	Missing you name any achievement of Hillary.
	No, no, I don't care.
	She's a woman and she can take it.
	Shamama jamma.
	It's enough for me.
	Well, this will be enough for them.
	Let's go to the audio soundbites, shall we?
	Let's get the truth out here.
	This is this morning, CBS this morning.
	This is a portion of their congressional reporter Nancy Cordis reporting about these recently released emails.
	Hillary.
	It showed that it was Blumenthal that sent an email to her who first blamed the Benghazi attacks on the internet video.
	See, they keep adding to the story.
	Have you ever heard until today that Sidney Blumenthal had a role in the whole notion of blaming the video for the attack?
	No, we're just now learning it in this leak of Hillary emails.
	Here's Nancy Cordis' report.
	Blumenthal's second take turned out to be correct, though that view never made it into the administration's talking points, which claimed that the attack was spontaneous.
	Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public, perhaps because she was getting some back channel intelligence.
	Wait, wait, wait a minute.
	Do you people at CBS not archive your tape?
	Because we have this from September 13th, 2012, two days after Benghazi.
	This is at the State Department, the opening plenary of the U.S. Morocco strategic dialogue, and we have Hillary Clinton speaking about an internet video that was blamed for the attacks in Benghazi.
	This video is disgusting and reprehensible.
	It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.
	Why, what what you just heard the CBS InfoBabe say that Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public.
	And she just made it two days after the event.
	She told the parents of the fallen at Dover over the flag draped coffins.
	She recorded a television commercial for airing in Pakistan with Obama, in which they both blamed the video.
	How in the world do you at CBS say Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public?
	So here's what's new.
	What's new is we've got 850 Clinton emails on Benghazi that she got rid of, she thought, because she deleted stuff on her server.
	New York Times has a third of them, but we don't know how they got them.
	The State Department says we didn't do it.
	Hillary says, I never had them, but the Times has them.
	Another running cover.
	And the big news in the emails, it was Sidney Blumenthal, who the day after Benghazi told her that it was a video.
	We all know that story was invented in the White House.
	But now they're trying to tell us that the reason the only reason Hillary went out there blaming the video is because Sidney Blumenthal told her.
	But the next day, two days after 9-11, Blumenthal said, wait a minute, wait, it wasn't the video.
	It actually was a terror group.
	And then we get the report Clinton herself never made that controversial claim in public, perhaps because she was getting some back channel intel.
	This is a reference to Blumenthal.
	Folks, they just keep lying to our face, and it becomes more blatant and more obvious each and every day now.
	And I'm telling you, the New York Times is clearly doing some advanced spinning for what hope.
	Oh, they hope nobody actually notices.
	Too late for that now, in their document dump later today.
	And to the phones we go.
	Open line Friday.
	We're going to start in uh West Palm Vision, Florida.
	This is Joel.
	I'm glad you called, sir.
	Great to have you with us.
	Hello.
	Hey, Russ, uh, grew up listening to you with my dad.
	I really appreciate you taking my my uh call.
	Great honor.
	Why, thank you, sir, very much.
	Um, so anyways, I uh read a quote earlier from Elizabeth Warren about this trade uh Trans-Pacific uh pact.
	And uh she was saying uh making fun of the Obama administration for saying that uh if we knew what was in it, we wouldn't want to pass it.
	And uh she said that's not how democracy works.
	I think that sounds uh that sounds pretty similar to how they did Obamacare, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it is.
	It's a that's a good catch on your part, Joel.
	I can tell that you are a lifetime, lifelong listener.
	Great, great catch.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thank you for taking your time today.
	Well, you should feel very proud.
	You should feel very proud.
	The um uh Elizabeth Warren did say something along the lines of we're gonna have to pass it to find out what's in it, which is exactly what Pelosi said about Obamacare.
	We got to pass it and know what's in it.
	Now, the interesting thing about this this uh Obama trade is the Democrats hate it.
	The Democrats hate it because they think that it does great damage to unions is the primary reason they hate it.
	They also hate it because the Republicans are providing the necessary push to get it passed, which kind of bothers me.
	Since it's an Obama deal, the odds are it isn't good.
	Since it's an Obama deal, the odds are the United States is gonna take it in the shorts.
	As we have on so much of the Obama agenda, both domestic and foreign policy.
	One of the things, and there are many, and by the way, this it hasn't changed.
	There that you they would not allow any of this deal to be made public.
	Members of Congress, House and Senate, had to go to a private room to read it.
	They were not allowed to take any notes.
	Well, they could take notes, they couldn't leave with their notes.
	They were not allowed to tell anybody what they read.
	Jeff Sessions had a massive op-ed piece and floor speech in the Senate about this.
	It's a disaster.
	Just on that basis alone, it's not how things happen in this country.
	One of the things Cybercast News Service just posted a story that the trade deal, the Obama Pacific Partner Trade Deal, whatever it's called, will eliminate trade barriers with North Vietnam.
	Well, Vietnam.
	Vietnam is a communist regime.
	It's running a 24.9 billion dollar trade deficit with the U.S. And the Trans-Pacific Partnership that Obama is negotiating with 11 other nations seeks to eliminate both tariff and non-tariff trade barriers with these countries.
	So it's it's it's uh well, I'll tell you to understand this stuff.
	Obama said something when he normalized or began the process of normalizing relations with Cuba.
	He said something to the effect that if we've been doing things a certain way for 50 years and they're not working, why it's time for a change.
	Of course, that doesn't apply to our own welfare state and failed Democrat policy after failed Democrat policy, but it is applicable when dealing with Iran and the Middle East and Israel and Palestine, and now dealing with foreign regimes who owe us money.
	We're just gonna wipe it out.
	We're gonna eliminate their debt.
	All because the only reason they have the debt is because we're such a mean superpower.
	And it's up to us to make it up to them for being the way we have been.
	There's another reason to left...
	The Democrats don't like it.
	They think that the Obama trade deal empowers evil corporations to sue things like the United Nations over EPA regulations and so they really hate it for that reason.
	But we gotta go.

▲